PC 06-09-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MQN[JTES
6:45 P.M. JUNE 9, 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Lisa Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: Community Development I>irector: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
AICP Senior Pla~lner: Colin Jung
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the Minutes
of the May 12, 2009 Planning Com~iission meeting as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to move the agenda to
Item 2, Application M-2009-02 to accommodate the applicant present.
2. M-2009-02 Tim Kelly Major Amendment modifying the Architectural and Site Approval
(Embarcadero Capital (ASA-2008-OS), Ilse Permit Modification (M-2008-03) Director's
Partners) Minor Modification (DIR-2008-32) & Tree Removal Permit
1 Results Way (TR-2008-06) foi• the purpose of extending expiration date of
these approvals for 6 years, phasing construction, clarifying
conditions of approval, & modifying the traffic & signal
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 9, 2009
improvement condition. Tentative Council Date: June 16, 2009
Colin Jung, AICP Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application as outlined in the attached staff report. City Council approved the
partial redevelopment of the 1 Results Way Office Park in September 2008. The applicant is
requesting extension of the expiration date of the approvals; phasing of construction; and
clarification of conditions of approval; and modify the traffic and signal improvement
conditions, No. 31 in Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit Modification.
• He reviewed in detail the applicant's requests as outlined in the staff report.
Staff supports the request fora 5 yeaz extension period, noting that other applications have
been granted extension approvals. ThE; applicant has agreed to ma~lce a $200,000
contribution for traffic improvements within a half mile radius of their project site; and
that these contributions either in the form of cash or posting letter of credit will be paid at
the time of building permit issuance. Thc;re is also a letter of support from Judy Wilson,
Co-Chair of the Monta Vista Senior All I~ fight Party thanking the applicant and the Results
Way Business Park for providing them accommodations for their senior party over the last
few yeazs and asking that the Planning Commission support the application.
Staff supports the request for flexible construction phasing with the following conditions:
when the phased project comes in, all existing and new buildings have sufficient pazking,
roadways, utilities and accessory structures, to function on its own and work with any
other construction phases proposed. Duruig the phase 1 construction of new building, that
the offsite traffic improvements, phase 1 public art requirements, front entry landscaping
improvements and any in-lieu development fees would be payable during the first phase.
There is an approved landscape plan that also includes the parking layout included in the
original approval; when that was initially ,approved it showed each of the buildings with its
complement of parking that would be used to serve that pazticulaz building. It was
designed that each building would have enough parking surrounding the building to meet
its own needs. They would like to use that plan not only to identify their pazking
improvements that they need to build, but also to define the limits of their improvements
to the site with minor adjustments that w~~uld be approved by the Director of Community
Development. Another condition is the interim parking plan that would be approved as
pazt of any phased project.
The third request is an amendment to the traffic signal improvement condition to give the
city more flexibility to allow in-lieu payment for offsite traffic work instead of the
McClellan Road improvements. Staff is not convinced that widening of McClellan Road
is the best option, but has not explored all. the options yet, and asked the applicant to offer
the city an in-lieu payment option to mitigate that concern. In the event the other traffic
improvements and pedestrian improvements were not as good as the widening of
McClellan Road, staff is also asking the applicant to make an irrevocable offer of
dedication of a portion of McClellan Road so that it could be widened in future. City
Council asked in their approval of the prc ject that they look at the street improvements as
part of the conditions of approval. The city and applicant have agreed on the $200,000
contributions; staff is recommending dele~:ion of Condition 4b in the model resolution.
~ Staff supports the extension of expiration date of approval, with the stipulation that the
implementation of the minor modification request would not vest any of the approvals for the
new buildings.
• Staff recommends that you re-use the previously granted mitigated negative declazation for the
original project, and also recommends approval of the extension request per the model
resolution.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 9, 2009
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about she application. Com. Miller expressed concern
that the $200K may set a precedent. Staff said the funds could be used on programs to mitigate the
traffic problem on McClellan Road.
Sandra James, Applicant, representing property owner:
• She explained that they were asking for extc;nsion on entitlements because of the economic
climate. The choices that people have, property owners, developers and clients that want to
lease buildings are on hold now because they don't know what is going to happen in the next
two to five years, and they need some flexibility. They are requesting approval of the five year
extension and to separate the traffic issues i:rom the extension. Since the city has not yet
determined what to do about traffic mitigation, the applicant is willing to make a dedication of
property.
John Hamilton, Managing Partner of Embarcadero Capital:
• He said he appreciated the support of their Efforts to have the dream of the park become a
reality; and with the input they received they have a good blueprint to move forward with. The
economy and growth of companies in the area are crucial in making it happen.
• He agreed that the $200K is just a donation and they want to be good neighbors. th addition to
the extension, they are asking that consideration be given to expenditure of the money
reasonably close to the project, which would hopefully give some long term benefit from a
traffic improvement, even if it is not directly contributing to any traffic mitigation around their
project. He said that the busing discussion sh~~uld be part of a larger study, and that he would
rather have the $200K go to something more tangible, a gift that would keep on giving. He
said he was familiar with the school congestion as he had children in the schools.
• Said he was comfortable with staff's recommc;ndation which was a fair compromise and is one
they could move forward with.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• The neighborhood and city was pleased to see a long term investment in a tech park; the Bubb
Road tech park is one of the oldest tech parks in Cupertino. The tech economy in the valley is
unpredictable, it cycles and is presently in a down cycle. If people are in as players in the long
term in the tech arena they understand how things go in Silicon Valley. She commended the
owners for their long term goal of having a presence on this site of the tech park, tech
buildings. Cupertino needs that to maintain their long history in the tech arena, and rather than
seeing a housing overlay put on this property which she didn't rule out depending on some of
the recent things that have gone down; she said she considered Bubb Road as a tech park and
hoped that it would remain that way in the fuhue.
• She said they have ongoing issues with the schools, and she felt the city was being very
reasonable in looking down the road at tryin;; to figure out ways to accommodate growth in
that area. That area will always have traffic problems and she hoped that by having a careful
plan and careful consideration from both the tech neighbors and schools and children that they
would eventually have a way of having traffiic move in that area. She said it was important
that they look at what has been happening in their tech properties and she felt it was a good
plan.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he supported the application; recalled that he voted against the project in September 2008;
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 9, 2009
his concern at the time was that the city was not dealing with the impact of several hundred
new workers. He said he felt the change of focus on McClellan Road to having a fixed fund to
deal with possible traffic problems as a result was a big step forward and he supported staff's
proposed recommendations.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported the application.
• He questioned whether it made sense to limit the area where the funds could be spent, the
distance of Bubb Road and McClellan Road. The real issue of what is going to be affected are
the two roads and it would seem like that would be the place to make improvements if you are
going to make improvements.
• Suggested that the language be tightened up to those specific streets as opposed to within a half
mile.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Referred to a map showing the half-mile radius; theoretically the farthest away would be the
Bubb and Stevens Creek intersection, whicri would not be an unreasonable place to make
improvements to handle the traffic coming; through the complex. He said he was not
comfortable with the half mile radius.
Chair Giefer:
• Recalled that in earlier discussions when it came up as a residential project and the other time
as a commercial project, they discussed opE;ning up Imperial or Orange or some of those
streets, and the neighbors were not supportive of that. She said the realistic opportunities are
of McClellan and the other intersections tend riot to fail the way that one does.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• She said they wanted to maintain maximum flexibility and the idea was not to make traffic
improvements to the side streets. If they circumscribe this tightly and there were little
improvements around the corners, some biking improvements; they didn't want to preclude
possibilities and the applicant suggested what was thought to be eloquent language, a half mile,
which covered a variety of options, and they wanted the city to have the most flexibility.
• The intent is if serious traffic improvements ~~re made, they are definitely going to be focused
on Bubb and McClellan.
Com. Lee:
• Said it was an elegantly designed project, anal she was hopeful that the money will be used to
help traffic in the area.
• Said she supported the extension and the project.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported the project; supports the I~hasing and the extension. He said he still had
some concerns about the additional monies that are being asked for and the manner in which
they are being asked. However, the applicant has indicated that he is satisfied with that result,
and he was supportive of the project.
Chair Giefer:
• She said although she shared the same concerns that Com. Kaneda had that it seems simple
where the traffic currently fails in the neighborhood, the point is well made that there may be
other solutions that they haven't thought through within that half mile radius; it does serve the
Cupertino Planning Commission
June 9, 2009
property. She said she wished busing was an ~~ption, but the applicant is less satisfied with that
and makes a good point; it is not something that is in perpetuity. She said they might get a test
for a year and see if it helps mitigate the issue., but fmding increasing funding for that would be
difficult.
• She said she supported the extension.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, seca~nd by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
M-2009-02 as written, ezcept that Para. 4b be deleted and that the Letter of
Agreement be adopted. (Vote: 5-0-(I)
The agenda was moved back to Item 1.
1. CP-2009-O1 (EA-2009-O1) Review of the five-year Capital Improvements Program
City of Cupertino (FY-2009-10 to 2013-14) for conformity to the City of
Citywide Location Cupertino's General Plan. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, AICP Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Said that the review of the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2009/10 to 2013/14 and objective
is to determine if the capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. Each
year, the City Council adopts a five year spending plan for capital improvements; and its
mechanism for prioritizing significant city e~cpenditures for capital projects important to the
city. Funding is not fixed for the second tl-rough the fifth years as priorities and projects
change, schedules speed up and slow down; tlhe only real certainty in the five year program is
the first year funded projects.
• Both state law and Cupertino Municipal Code; require the Planning Commission to review the
CIP for General Plan consistency; and also to make a recommendation on the environmental
assessment. The Planning Commission is not responsible for setting the CIP funding
priorities, which is under the purview of the City Council. The most significant project from an
environmental standpoint is the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project which is a multi-year
funded project. Other CIP projects consist of repairs, renovations and minor improvements,
small additions to existing City infrastructure, smaller amounts of money for feasibility studies
and data collection to support newer longer tc;rm projects. The review of the projects indicate
staff has determined that the projects were categorically exempt from environmental review
based on the nature of the projects; however, part of the requirements of CEQA is that the
environmental Review Committee when they look at the projects, not only individually, but
they need to take a look at the cumulatively is to decide whether the cumulative impact of all
these all relatively minor projects has a significant impact or not. The ERC recommended a
negative Declaration for capital improvement :program.
• Second part of the review is a review of tike General Plan consistency for the CIP. He
reviewed the CIP Matrix; which indicated the nature of the General Plan policy that pertains to
the seven categories of projects as outlined in the CIP Matrix.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend a Negative Declaration for the
Capital Improvement Program and find the fire-year CIP consistent with the General Plan per
the model resolution.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about funding of projects and potential projects for the
future.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 9, 2009
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Commended the City of Cupertino for its sound budget management and its fiscal
responsibility.
• She reported that recently there was a decision made not to pursue having the sidewalks
maintained by the city which because of negative connotations the city should discuss further.
There are parts of the city that will suffer because they have sidewalk infrastructures and if
they do go down that road, they will have a lot of public input. She said she was not in favor of
private owners maintaining their sidewalks.
• She said she was pleased that the city is pursuing the acquisition of the Sterling Barnhart
properties in Rancho Rinconada as the area is deficient in parks. Also pleased about the
Lawrence/Mitty Park, even though it is out 3 to 4 or 5 years; the 280 Calvert/Lawrence
interchange is supposed to be upgraded in the; next couple of years from Calvert to Bollinger;
and Lawrence Expressway is planned to be expanded 4 lanes.
• She expressed thanks for the parks, trees, and ~~upertino.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, seco~id by Com. Miller, to recommend a Negative
Declaration for the fve-year Capital Improvement Program, file No. CP-2009-01
and that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Capital Improvement
Program is consistent with the General Plan. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS• None
NEW BUSINESS• None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Meeting cancelled.
Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported on the May 14, 2009 meeting held. He reported
that there were two new Housing Commission members. The Commission received $105,000
from HUD as part of the stimulus money and decided to allocate it for senior housing and
rebuilding Silicon Valley.
Mavor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioner3: Com. Kaneda reported:
• Parlcs and Rec -recently the Kaboom Group organized a volunteer building session at
Blackberry Farm to build a play structure. Also discussed anoff--leash dog policy, and attempt
to identify one park where the policy could bc; implemented.
• Blackberry Farm to reopen on July 4~'.
• Library Commission budget was approved; will keep Monday hours; changing to RFID
system of book tagging; the Teen area will be remodeled.
• Bicycle Commission is working on updating their bicycle plan and it will be done internally,
not by consultant. 50% increase in biking from the last year; will be developing some bike
safety classes.
• Public Safety Commission needs volunteers for 4`~ of July Fireworks to help patrol the
fireworks sites. Interested persons will need to be certified; contact Dave Wynn at
dnguyen722na,gmail.com
Cupertino Planning Commission
June 9, 2009
• IT Commission will be working with Erin Cook on an energy efficiency plan in conjunction
with Semens and also discussing street lighting including LED street lighting and induction
street lighting; coordinating with City of San Jose.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting held.
Chair Giefer:
• Reported on her attendance at a recent Builcl a Green meeting, where there was a discussion
about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the money that was being passed
down to cities. Several counties and cities were being proactive in trying to make those funds
available to reduce their carbon footprints in their communities, doing everything from
creating Mello Roos districts where, similar to what Berkeley did, they are making the funds
available in the long term to residents to help reduce the city's overall carbon footprints.
• She pointed out that just as the Housing Commission was asked what they should do with the
HUD money, it would have been a good op~~ortunity if they had been involved when the city
first found out how much money they were letting for their block grant for energy efficiency
projects, because they would have added a lot of value. There is not time to react because the
recommendations have to be made by June 2:i'~.
• She encouraged staff as part of their overall recommendations that some money be allocated
for community education on what is availablle for improvement. Staff and department heads
were asked to come up with a list of projects that they felt could be eligible for the energy
grant blocks and just as they saw in the capital expenditure budget, they saw some of the
Recovery Act dollars being allocated toward street improvements as part of the transportation
portion. She said she felt that they coulii have made a greater impact with the dollars
available to them, had they put their heads together and come up with some ideas.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she was specifically interested in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she would follow up with Erin Cook. She reported that a lot of the CDBG money went
toward retrofitting homes to improve energy efficiency.
Chair Giefer:
• Said if they were allocated based on population, it was her understanding that it is the city's
job to determine how to take and admini;~ter those funds and put them toward various
projects. They have to be put toward energy efficiency so putting solar panels on city hall
would be appropriate, aggregating funds and making low income housing loans for
improvements for aging housing based on n~;,ed would be another way to do it. Some cities
are embracing this and trying to figure out how to use the money to reduce the carbon
footprint, reduce energy consumption, put into play that job creation for insulation and
weatherizing and other types of things that were part of the initial Recovery Act. She said
the Planning Commission was interested and willing to
participate, and she felt it was a resource whi~~h has been left in the cold.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said they were working toward getting the; energy block grant, and that Erin Cook was
working on a report to the Planning Commission.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 9, 2009
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the City Council discussed their work program in ApriUMay, and the Planning
Commission's work program will be sent to the Council the first meeting in July.
Com. Kaneda:
• Announced that at the June 11`~ Santa Clara County Cities Assoc. meeting, the Green
Building Task Force will be presenting their Phase 2 recommendations to the Cities
Association for adoption.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMiJPdITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava provided an update on projects forwarded to the City Council:
• The Council reviewed and discussed the housing element and office allocation items; there
were some additional suggestions from Coui-cil members as well as from some community
members. Staff has looked at some of those sites and will be bringing back a recommendation
for tomorrow night to the Council. The Housing element is only a discussion item for
tomorrow night; they will have their final public hearing on June 16.
• The City Council asked that the office allocation be brought back in July, likely at the second
meeting.
• The Planning Commission work program will come back in July.
Gary Chao:
• Reviewed items to be agendized for June 23. Said that two meetings per month will still be
scheduled; discussion of forthcoming activities and applications will be held with the
Commission to determine future agenda items.
Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the neat regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for June 23, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
• ~
Respectfully Submitted:
iza lis, Recor ng ecre
Approved as Amended: June 23, 2009